### IN THE COURT OF CRIMI NAL AP PEALS OF TENNES SEE AT KNOXVI LLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y 17, 200 5
AN DR E L. MA YF IELD v. HO WAR D C AR LTON & S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE
Appeal f romthe Cr im inal Cou rt for Johnson County No. 4434 Robert

E. Cup p, Jud ge

No. E2005-00138-CC A-R3- HC - F iled Jul y 29, 2005

The pe titioner, Andre L . May field, filed a petition for writ of ha

beas c orpus ar g uing that: (1) he wa s improperly

considere d as a multiple rapist; (2) the trial court lac ked the au t h o ri ty to sentence the petitioner as a multipl e rapist without a n indictment c harg ing him as such; (3) the trial court lac ked authority to modify

the petitioner’s origina l sentence ; (4) the trial court failed to expresslystate how the sentenc e in count five ( 5) would run; (5) the trial court improperly filled out the judg ment form fo r count f

ou r ( 4) ; a nd(6 ) the jud g me nt f orms i nd ic a tin g that th e pe tit ion e r w a s se nte nc e d a s a multipl e off

ender with a re lease elig ibilit y

of thirty -five pe rce nt (35%) a re imprope r. The trial court denied the pe tition. The petitioner appea ls. For the f ollowing r easons, we aff

irm the judg ment of the tr ia l c ou rt

. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Tr ial Co ur t i s A ffirm e d.

J ER R Y L. S MI TH , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the court, in which D AVI D G. H A Y ES and T H O M A S T. W O O D A LL , J J ., joined.

Andre L . May field, Pro Se, Mountain City , Tenne ssee. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral & Reporter ; Bre nt C. Cher ry , Assistant Attorney

Gene ral a nd J oe Crumley , District Attorney Gene ral for

the appe llee, State of Te nnessee
.

OP IN ION

Fa ctual B ackg round

On J uly 15, 1993, the petitioner pled g uilty t o t h re e (3) counts of ag g ravated ra pe and one (1 ) c ou nt o f a g g ra vate d r ob be ry . A s a re su lt o f the ple a a g re e me nt, the pe tit ion e r w a s se nte nc e d to
concur rent terms of twenty

(20) y ear s for e ach a g g ravated ra pe convic tion and ten (10) y ear s for theT he t ech ni cal r ecor d al s o i ncl udes a c op y of a pr evi ous pet i t i on for wr i t o f ha beas cor pus f

i l ed by t he pet i t i oner 1

on Apr i l 22, 2004, i n c as e n u mber 4385.
-2- ag g ravated robbe ry

conviction, for an eff

ective sentenc e of twenty (20) y ear s as a Rang e I standard offe nder w ith a rele ase e ligibility of thirty perc ent (30%)

. On Marc h 15, 1999, the petit ioner filed a mot ion to withdraw his g uilty plea. I n that motion, the petitioner a

rg ued that bec ause he was c lassified by the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection as a multiple rapist, his relea se elig ibilit y was c hang ed fr om thirtyperc ent (30%) t o o n e hundre d perc ent (100%) in violation of his plea ag ree ment and, ther efor e, his plea w as ineff ective. T he trial court a llowed the petitioner to withdra w his plea a g ree ment.

I n J une o f 1 9 9 9 , the petitioner wa s tried by a Da vidson Countyjury and found g uiltyof ag g ravated robbe ry , ag g ravated ra pe, ra pe and two (2) counts of ag g ravated kidnapping for c rimes perpe trated on two ( 2) victims. As a re sult, he was sentenc ed to an eff ective te rm of fifty

(50) y ear s as a multiple rapist and multiple offen d er . The pe titioner appea led. On dire ct appe al, this Court aff irmed t he petiti oner’ s conviction, but modified the j udg ment of the trial c ourt to indicate that the p e t i t i o n e r w a s a R a n g e II m u l t i p l e r ap i s tf o r p u rp o s e s o f t h e r ap e c o n v i c t i o n
. S e e S t a t e v
. A n d r e L. May field, No. M1999-02415- CCA-R3-CD, 2001 WL637700 (Tenn. Crim. App., at Nashville, June 11, 2001), perm. app. denied, ( Tenn. 2001).

On Ju ly 1 3 , 2 0 0 4 , th e p e ti ti o n e r

f il e d a p e ti ti o n f

o r w r it o f h ab e a s c o rp u s in th e Jo h n s on Cou nty Cir c uit Cou rt in c a se nu mbe r 44 34

. I n that pe tit ion , the pe tit ion e r arg ue d that: (1 ) h is f if ty 1 (50) y ear sentenc e is void; (2) his sentenc e as a multipl e ra

pist o n co u n t t h re e (3) is in direc t
c on tr a ve nti on of

Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d se c tio n 39 -1 3- 52 3( a )( 2) ; (3 ) his se nte nc e a s a mul tip le rapist on count five (5) is voi d beca use t he trial court lacked authority to impose the sentenc e without a sep ar a te in d ic tm e n t c h ar g in g th e p e ti ti o n e r a s a mu lt ip le r ap is t; ( 4 ) th e tria l c o u r t lacke d the authority to modify the petit ioner’s origina l sentenc e from twenty (20) y ear s to fifty (50) y ear s; (5) his sentence o n count five ( 5) is in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 40-20-111 beca use the trial c ourt failed to e x pres s l y s t at e whe ther the se ntence would run conc urre nt or
consec utive to the other sente nces; (6) his sentence on count four (4) is void beca use the trial c ourt expressly order ed the se ntence to run conc urre nt to another sentenc e, but the judgme nt form states that the sentenc es are to be serve d consec utively ; and (7) the petitioner is improperly classified a s a Rang e I I

multipl e off

ender . The trial court enter ed an or der on D ece mber 8, 2004, de ny ing the petition for habe as cor

pus relief . The pe titioner filed a timely notice of a

ppeal.

On ap p ea l , the pro se pe titioner prese nts the following issues: (1) whether the trial court pr op e rl y c la ssi fi e d the pe tit ion e r as a mul tip le ra pis t; (2 ) wh e the r the tr ia l c ou rt ha d th e a uth ority

to enhanc e the pe titioner’s sentenc e to t h at of a multiple rapist without an indictment cha rg ing suc h enhanc ement; (3) whether the trial court lacked the authority to modify

the petitioner’s origina l
se nte nc e ; ( 4) wh e the r the fi ft e e n ( 15 ) y e ar s e nte nc e fo r r ape is v oidbe c a us e the tr ia l cou rt faile d to expressly state whe ther the sentenc e would run concur rent or consec utive to the other sente nces; a nd (5) whe ther the se ntence for a g g ravated kidnapping under c ount four (4) is vo i d beca use the trial-3-

court orde red the sentenc e to run concur rent to the sentenc e for

ag g ravated ra

pe under count three (3), b u tt h e j u d g m e n tf

o r mi n c o rr e c t l y s t a t e s t h a tt h e s e n t e n c e s b e s e r v e d c o n s e c u t i v e l y.
An a ly sis

Standard of Re view for

Habe as Corpus Relief On appe al, the petitioner a rg ues that the trial court improperly dismiss ed the pe tition. The State arg ues that the pe tition for habea s corpus re lief wa s proper ly denied be cause t h e petitioner failed to prove that the judg ment of the trial c ourt was void or that his sentence is illeg al.

The g rounds upon which a writ of habe as cor pus may be issued ar e very

narr ow. McL aney v. Be ll, 59 S.W .3d 90, 92 (Tenn. 2001) . A writ of ha beas c orpus is available only when it appe ars on the fa ce of

the judg ment or the rec ord that the convicting court wa s without jurisdi ction to convict
or se nte nc e the de fe nd a nt o r that th e defe nda nt i s st ill imp ri so ne d d e sp ite the e xpir a tio n o f h is sentenc e. Ar cher

v. Stat e, 851 S.W .2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 1993) ; Pott s v. State, 833 S.W .2d 60, 62 (Tenn. 1992)

. A h abe a s p e tit ion e r c a n o nly a tta c k a jud g me nt that i s vo id on its fa c e a ndno t on e that is
me re ly vo ida ble

. Sta te v. Ritc hie , 20 S.W. 3d 62 4, 63 0 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) . “ A v oidjud g me nt i s o ne in which the judgment is fac ially invalid beca use t he court lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judgme nt or b ec ause the defe ndant’s sente nce ha s expi red.” Tay lor v. State, 995 S.W .2d 78, 83 (Tenn. 1999)

. A petitioner has the burde n of establishing by a pre pondera nce of

the evidenc e that the judg ment he attac ks is void or that his term of imprisonment has ex pired. State ex rel. Kuntz v. Boma r, 381 S.W.2d 290, 291 (Tenn. 1964). I f a pe titioner fails to establish by a pre pondera nce of the evidenc e that his conviction is void or his term of imprisonment has expired, he is not entitl ed to imme d iate r e le a s e
. Pa s s ar e ll a v
. St a te , 8 9 1 S. W. 2 d 6 1 9 , 6 2 7

- 2 8 ( T e n n
. Crim

. A p p
. 1994),
s u p e r c e d e d b y s tatu te a s s tate d in St a te v
. St e v e n S. N e w man , N o
. 0 2 C0 1

- 9 7 0 7

- CC

- 0 0 2 6 6 , 1 9 9 8 WL 104492, at *1 n.2 (Te nn. Crim. App., at J ackson, Ma r. 11, 1998). A. Multiple Rapist C lassification The pe titioner contends that his sentenc e as a multipl e ra

pist on count t hree (3) is voi d and in direct c ontrave n t i o n of Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-13-523(a )(2) . Specifica lly , he arg ues that this w as his “ first rape offe nse convic tion ever, a nd the statute only applies to a sec ond
or subsequent rape conviction.” He c ites State v. J ohnson, 970 S.W .2d 500, 505 (Tenn. Crim. App. 19 96 ), to s up po rt

his arg ume nt. Th e Sta te c ou nte rs that the pe tit ion e r w a s p ro pe rl y c la ssi fi e d a s a multipl e ra

pist.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 39-13-523(a )(2) define s a multiple rapist as “a person convicted two ( 2) or more time s o f violating the provisions of § 39-13-502 or § 39-13-503, or

a person c onvicted at lea st one (1) time of violating § 39-13-502, a nd at least one time of § 39-13- 503.” Classification as a

multipl e ra

pist requires a

defe ndant to serve “the entire se ntence imposed-4-

by the court undimini shed by any sentenc e re duction cre dits such person may be elig ible for or

earn.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39- 13-523(b)

. I n State v. J ohnson, the defe ndant was c onvicted of a rape prior to the ena ctment of the 1992 statute mandating service of t he entire sentenc e for a multiple rapist. This Court determined that the 1992 statute applied a s l o n g as o n e (1) of the ra pe off enses at issue was committed afte r the
enac tment of the law. J ohnson, 970 S.W .2d at 505. I n the case here in, the petitioner wa s convicted of one ( 1) count of a g g ravated ra pe and one (1) c ount of rape , both occur ring afte r the e nactment of the 1992 statute mandating se rvice of the e ntire sentenc e f o r a m u l t i p le ra

pist. The petitioner clea rly qualifies as a

multipl e ra

pist as he was c onvicted of two ( 2) ra pe offenses as require d by the statut e . T he pe tit ion e r’ s cla ssi fi c a tio n as a mult ipl e ra pis t doe s n ot r e su lt i n a

vo id j ud g me nt. Th is iss ue is w ith ou t me ri t.

B. Sepa rate I ndictment for Multiple Rapist Classification

Th e pe tit ion e r a lso arg ue s th a t hi s se nte nc e a s a mul tip le ra

pi st in c ou nt f

ive (5 ) i s v oid beca use the trial c ourt lacke d the authority to impose an enhanc ed sentenc e classifying the petitioner
a s a mu lt ip le rapis t w ith ou t a se pa rate ind ic tme nt s pe c if

y ing a ndc ha

rg ing that th e of

fe ns e wa s a se c on d o ff

e ns e e lig ibl e fo r an e nh a nc e d p un ish me nt. Th e Sta te dis a g re e s.
I n support of his arg ument, the petitioner a rg ues that Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 40- 35 -2 03 re quir e s th e Sta te to f ile a se pa rate ind ic tme nt s pe c if

y ing a ndc ha

rg ing the pe tit ion e r w ith rape as a se cond off

en s e el i g ible for a n enhanc ement punishment. Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 40-35- 203(e) o u t lines a trial court’s proce dures f or imposing se ntence s and provides a s fo llo ws :
I f th e c r im in a l o f

f e n s e f o r w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t i s c h ar g e d c arr ie s a n e n hance d punishment for a se cond or subsequent violation of the same off ense, the indictment in a sepa rate count shall specif

y and cha rg e such fac t. I f the de fenda nt is convicted of the off ense, the n the jury must find that bey ond a rea sonable doubt the de fenda nt has bee n previously

convicted the requisit e number of times for the sa me offe nse. Upon such fi n d i n g, the def endant sha ll be subject to the authorized terms of imprisonment for the fe lonies and misdemeanor s as set forth in § 40-35-111.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 40- 35-203(e ). The Sente ncing Commi ssion Co m m en t s for Te nnessee Code An no ta te d s e c tio n 4 0- 35 -2 03 state that a n “ e xamp le of a n ap pli c a tio n o f s ub se c tio n ( e )” is f ou ndin Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 17 -4 18 , w hic h s pe c if ic a lly pr ov ide s for “ a n e nh a nc e d p e na lty for third a nd subseq u en t o ffe nses” f or simple possession or ca sual exchang e of a controlled substance. T enn. Code Ann. § 39- 17-418 Sent. Comm’n Cmts. I n the case herein, t he petitioner w as convicted of one (1) count of ag g ravated rape and one (1) count of rape , in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated se ctions 39-13-502 a nd 39-13-503, r espec tively

. Ne i t h er statute proscribe s an enhanc ed punishment for a second or subsequent off

ense a s require d by

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated
se c tio n 4 0- 35 -2 03 . F urthe r, Te nn e sse e Cod eA n no ta te d s e c tio n 3 9- 13 -5 23 me re ly de fi ne s a mul tip le-5-

ra p i s ta s a p e r s o n c o n v i c t e d t w o ( 2 ) o r m o r e t i m e s o f

v i o l a t i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e r ap e s t a tut e s, it d oe s not ind ic a te that a tria l c ou rt or a jury mus t de te rm ine wh e the r a de fe nd a nt i s a

mul tip le ra

pis t. The c lassification is, essentially , automatic upon a de fenda nt’s second c onviction f or a rape offe nse. Th e pe tit ion e r h a s f

a ile d to c itea ny

a uth ority dic ta tin g oth e rw is e. W e fail t o s e e ho w a se pa rate indictment is necessa

ry in order to c lassify the petitioner as a multipl e rapist. Ag ain, the petitioner’s classification as a multiple rapist does not result in a void judg ment. This issue is without merit.

C. “Modification” of

Orig inal Sentence Next, the petitioner arg ues t hat the trial c ourt lacke d the authority “to modify

the petitioner’s orig inal sentenc e fr om 20 y ear s to 50 y ear s, once the judge ment [si c] on the orig inal 20 y ear sentenc e had bec ame [sic] final, and the petitioner wa s transfe re d [ s i c] t o the Tenne ssee De partment of Correc tion, to st art serving the 20 y ear sentenc e.” The S tate conte nds that there is no de fec t in the trial court’ s judgme nt that is “discerna ble from the r ecor d.”

I n 1993, the petitioner pled guilt y to three ( 3) counts of a g g ravated ra pe and one (1) c ount of ag g ravated robbe ry
. Pursuant to the ag ree ment, the petitioner wa s to serve a n eff ective se ntence of t we n t y (20) y ear s with a thirty perc ent (30%) rele ase e ligibility . Howeve r, the De partment of Cor re c tio n c la ssi fi e d th e pe tit ion e r a s a mul tip le ra

pis t, r e qu ir ing him

to s e rv e his sen tence in i ts entirety . There fore , in 1999, the petit ioner volunt arily moved t o withdraw his guilty plea f rom 1993 and expressed his desire to go to trial on the offe nses with which he w as cha rg ed. The petitioner was pe rmitted to withdraw his plea be cause the petitioner wa s not elig ible for a thirty perc ent (30%) rele ase eligibility as a multipl e rapist. As a result, the pe titioner was tried by a jury as if he ha d never
e nte re d a ple a . T he pe tit ion e r n ow e sse nti a lly arg ue s th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt did no t ha ve the a uth ority to enterta in his mot ion for withdra wal of his plea s because his motion was untimely

. A t ri al cou rt ha s th e a uth ority to “ c or re c t a n il le g a l, a s o pp os e d to a me re ly e rr on e ou s, sentenc e at any time, even if it has become final.” State v. Bur khart, 566 S.W .2d 871, 872 (Tenn. 1978). This Court has pre viouslydetermined that judgme nts setting release elig ibilit y bey ond the outer limits of statutory

authority are void. See Dewayne C athey v. State, No. W2003-00411-CCAR3-CD, 2004 WL

1686869 (Tenn. Crim. App., at J ackson, July28, 2004), perm. app. denied, ( Tenn. Dec . 20, 2004); Wil liam Boy d v. State, No. E1999-02179-CCA-R3-PC , 2000 WL 1661526 (Tenn. Crim. App. Nov. 6, 2000). I n the ca se her ein, the petitioner move d to withdraw his g uiltypleas based on the premise that the se ntence he ag ree d to was, in eff ect, a n illega l sentence . Thoug h the jud g me nt w a s f

ina l a t th e tim e , th e tr ia l c ou rt ha d ju ri sd ic tio n to a llo w the pe tit ion e r t o w ith dr a w h is plea because the judg ment was illeg al and void. The petitioner re ceive d a trial a nd his sentence and
c on vic tio ns we re a ff

ir me d o n d ir e c t app e a l. S e e An dr e L . M a y fi e ld, 20 01 WL 63 77 00 , at 15 . Wh ile the petitioner is surely

dissatisfied that his sentence was in cr ease d from twenty (20) to fifty

(50) y ear s, there is no proof in the rec ord that the judgme nt is void such that would warrant habea s corpus relief . This issue is without merit.-6- D. Sentence

Th e pe tit ion e r c on te nd s o n a pp e a l th a t th e tr ia l c ou rt

faile d “ to e xpre ssl y

state ho w c ou nt 5 would run fr om or wit h the ot her counts” and that the judg ments are contra ry to the stated intent of the trial court in reg ard to the m an n er o f s er v i ce of count four (4). The State arg ues that the trial court’s intention as to the manne r of se rvice of the sente nces is cle ar f rom the re cord.

Th e jud g me nts he re in re fl e c t tha t the pe tit ion e r wa s con vic te d o f a g g ra vate d kidn app ing in
c ou nt o ne (1 ) andse nte nc e d to fi ft e e n (15 ) y e ars a s a Ran g e I I mul tip le of

fe nd e r. Th e se nte nc e in count one wa s order ed to run c oncurr ent to the sentenc e in count two (2) and c o n secutive to the sentenc e in count thre e (3) . I n count two (2), the petitioner wa s convicted of ag g ravated robbe ry

and sentenc ed to f

ifteen (15) y ear s as a Rang e I I multipl e off

ender . The sente nce f

or ag g ravated robbe ry wa s o r d e r e d t o ru n c o n c u rr e n t t o t h e s e n t e n c e i n c o u n t o n e ( 1 ) a n d c o n s e c u t i v e t o t h e s e n t e nc e in
c ou nt thr e e (3 ). I n c ou nt thr e e (3 ), the pe tit ion e r wa s con vic te d of ag g ra vate d r ape a ndor de re d to
serve twenty

(20) y ear s as a multiple ra p i s t

. T h e s entence in count thre e (3) was orde red to run
consec utive to the sentenc es in counts one (1) , two (2), f our (4) and five (5). In count four ( 4), the p et i t i o n er wa s co n v i ct ed o f a ggra v at ed k i d n ap p i n g an d o rd er ed t o s er v e f i ft ee n (1 5 ) y ea rs as a R an ge I I multipl e off

ender

. The sentenc e in c ount f our (4) was order ed to be serve d concur rent with count five (5) and consecutive to counts one (1), two (2), and three (3). I n count five (5), the petitioner was convicted of

rape and sente nced to fiftee n (15) y ear s as a multiple rapist. the sente nce in c ount five (5) wa s order ed to be se rved c oncurr ent with count four ( 4) and consecutive to counts one (1), two (2), a nd three (3). The petitioner wa s sentence d to a total eff ective se ntence of fifty

(50) y ear s. Th e pe tit ion e r c ite s th e fo llo wi ng la ng ua g e fr om the tr a ns c ri pt as the ba sis of his c omp la int :
I t’ s th e jud g me nt of the Cou rt that Cou nts On e a ndTw o w ill ru n c on c ur re nt, on e wi th the oth e r. Th e y

wi ll r un c on se c uti ve to C ou nt Th re e
. Th e y wi ll ru n co ns e c uti ve to Counts Three a nd Four , which will run conc u rr en t one with the other . . . . I t’s the intention of this Court to sentenc e the defe ndant t o the Depa rtment of Corre ctions for a period of fifty

y ear s.
The petitioner arg ues that beca use the trial court failed to state how the sentenc e in cou n t fi v e ( 5) would ru n an d beca

use the stated intent of

the trial court conflicts with the judg ment forms, the judgme nt is void.

We acknowle dg e that the transcript of the se ntencing hearing c onflicts with the judgme nt forms ente red by the trial court. Ordinarily , when there is a conflict betwee n the judgme nt form and the transc ript, the transc ript controls. See State v. Moore , 814 S.W .3d 381, 383 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1991). Howe ver, after examining t he transcript and the judgme nt forms, i t appea rs that the trial c ourt
me r e ly mi s s tate d th e p e ti ti o n e r ’ s s e n te n c e a t th e s e n te n c in g h e ar in g
. T h e tria l c o u r t o r d e r e d the sentenc es in counts one ( 1) and two ( 2) to run conse cutive to the sentenc es in counts three (3) a nd fo ur (4 ) w he n the tr ia l c ou rt int e nd e d to se nte nc e the pe tit ion e r to a tot a l se nte nc e of

fi ft y (5 0) y e ars
. I n o rd e r t o s e nte nc e the pe tit ion e r t o f if ty (5 0) y e ars , the se nte nc e s in cou nts on e (1 ) andtw o ( 2) mus t be served consecutively to the sentenc es in counts four ( 4) and f ive (5), r ather

than three (3) a nd fourT h e S ta te a lso a rg u e s in a se p a ra te issu e tha t “th e [p e tit io n e r’s] c la im tha t h is se n te n c e s a s a R a n g e II m u lti p le 2 offender wer e bas ed on i nv al i d ju dgment s o f p r i or convi ct i ons ren der hi s sen t enc es ‘ voi dabl e’ at bes t

. ” T he pet i t i oner pres ent ed t hi s ar gu ment i n h i s ori gi nal pet i t i on, but appear s t o hav e a bandoned t hi s ar gu ment on appeal

. As a r es ul t , we
c h o o se no t t o a d d re ss th e issu e
. -7- (4). As state d above, a

habea s petitioner ca n only attack a judgme nt that is void on its fa ce and not one that is mere ly

voidable. Ritchie, 20 S.W.3d at 630. “A void judgme nt is one in which the judgme nt is facially

invalid because the c ourt lacke d jurisdiction or authority to rende r the judg ment
or beca use the defe ndant’s sentenc e has expired.” Taylor, 995 S.W .2d at 83. Thus, we de termine that even if there wer e a definitive conflict betwee n the s entenc es as stated on the j udg ments and the lang uag e of the transcript, such a conf lict would merely

rende r t h e judg ments voidable, and ine lig ibl e fo r h abe a s c or

pu s r e lie f. Th is i ssu e is w ith ou t me ri t. 2

Conclusion

For the fore g oing r easons, the judg ment of the trial c ourt is affirmed.

___________________________________ J ERRY L . SMI TH, JUDGE